Paddington Garden Company One Limited v Mohammed Ali Abbas Rasool & Anor

Contempt of court may be established where a party knowingly verifies materially false statements in applications or evidence, provided the court is sure of the relevant facts and dishonesty. A party’s repeated use of false factual accounts, unsupported tenancy documents and non-compliance with court orders may also justify a civil restraint order. When assessing whether applications were totally without merit for that purpose, the court may consider their true character retrospectively, in light of facts established later. Where an extended civil restraint order would be insufficient, the court may impose a general civil restraint order.

Paddington applied to commit Mr Rasool for contempt and sought a civil restraint order. The contempt allegations arose from five without-notice applications for mandatory injunctions concerning four London properties. Mr Rasool had asserted that he and members of his family were tenants and had been unlawfully evicted. Several applications obtained interim orders, including an order giving him access to a flat owned by Paddington.

In earlier proceedings, the injunction concerning Paddington’s property was discharged and possession was granted to Paddington. The present hearing addressed whether the statements and documents used in the various applications were knowingly false, the appropriate contempt consequences, and whether Mr Rasool’s repeated applications justified an extended or general civil restraint order.

1. Contempt proved. The court was sure that the statements and documents relied upon in the applications contained deliberate and material falsehoods. The accounts of occupation, tenancy, eviction, family members’ residence and access to the properties were mutually inconsistent, unsupported by credible documents and contradicted by reliable contemporaneous evidence. Mr Rasool’s explanation that advisers were responsible for the inaccuracies was rejected.
2. The admitted falsehoods were sufficient to undermine Mr Rasool’s credibility, save where corroborated by clear and undisputed contemporaneous documentation or independent evidence. The court nevertheless examined the principal disputed matters, including whether genuine tenancy agreements existed and whether a witness statement had been sent by Mr Rasool.
3. All contempts alleged in relation to the four properties were proved to the requisite standard, subject to limited qualifications concerning duplication and the amount of a deposit in the Bloomfield Court allegations. The court found that Mr Rasool had no subsisting entitlement to occupy the relevant properties and that the Betula House tenancy agreement on which he later relied was not genuine.
4. Civil restraint order. In determining whether applications were totally without merit, the court could examine applications retrospectively where later-established facts showed that they had been totally without merit. The court applied the approach identified in Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225. Eight applications or related proceedings were found to be totally without merit.
5. The number and concentration of those applications meant that an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient. Applying Practice Direction 3C, paragraph 4.1, the appropriate order was a general civil restraint order.

This was a first-instance contempt and civil restraint application. The judgment records that an earlier injunction concerning Betula House had been discharged and possession granted to Paddington on 17 December 2021 under [2021] EWHC 3633 (QB). The present court then determined the contempt allegations and the appropriate restraint order.